to think family courts are a flaming joke!

I have read so many posts on here, groups on FB and other forums of desperate women who have left abusive partners to protect their children just for the courts to award contact and the abuse continues because unless it becomes physical the courts seem loathe to make contact supervised.

I know all about children needing fathers but even abusive ones that will hurt them or screw them up emotionally??

"It does harm a child to be refused any relationship with one half of his/her genetic makeup."

Is this the line the courts take, and if so who exactly decided that was correct?

My son, who was 15 at the time, decided he wanted no contact with his father when his father and I separated. His view would have been the same had he been much younger too. It does not bear thinking about to wonder the effect of forced contact, and the ensuing feeing of powerlessness that most children must feel.

Personally I have been to the family court twice, so far, luckily just for my divorce and it is clear that the judges are overworked and under prepared to make huge decisions on people's lives. They havent read the files and seem more interested in "breaking for lunch" than getting the job done, It is horrifying to know this is going on where children are involved. I have seen women sobbing their hearts out in the corridor of the courts just on my two visits. It is chilling to see and here. I believe the vast majority of mothers want the best for their children and understand what that is and should have more respect from the courts in this decision. How many women would make things up and lie just for spite about their ex's? Very few I would suspect.

We can't change what is considered to be good evidence, unless you are prepared to see people made subject to findings simply on other people's say so. While it is certainly possible for a judge to make a finding simply on someone's word, the more serious the allegation and the more serious the consequences of that allegation, the more likely it is that you will need corroboration of what you say.

That is why I say the focus needs to be on education - helping people understand from the earliest possible moment what makes a relationship abusive, helping people get out, raising their aspirations and their self esteem so they don't enter into and stay in abusive relationships.

Legal Aid is NOT being withdrawn from cases where violence is an issue. BUT you will need clear prior proof such as a criminal conviction, non molestationorder or referral to a refuge.

So I accept that emotional abuse is going to probably fall outside that.

But to blame the courts for being a 'joke' is kindof missing the point. Emotionally abusive relationships can often involve a very toxic dynamic stretching back for years. Asking the court to be able to unpick all of this ad find a way forward is unrealistic. These are essentially pyschological problems, not legal problems.

^To Helensastonishment, when she returned to court about thenon-molestation order she was faced with anunexpected discussion of when and how often herabusive ex-partner should see the children.^

^Responses from solicitors and barristers supportedwomens perceptions that proceedings were ofteninitiated by men as a means of sustaining, or regaining,control (see also Radford et al, 1997; Harrison 2008;Thiara, 2010).^

^In contrast, the majority of respondents21 reported thatwomens motivations, in the rare cases where they arethe applicants, centre around ensuring their childrenssafety (88%, n=60) and their own (60%, n=41). Overtwo fifths (44%, n=30) of responses suggested thatensuring children had contact with non-residentparents was significant, with only a small minority(12%, n=8) reporting that women seek revenge. Ofthe two women here who initiated courtproceedings,22 both acted in response to theabductions of their children and approached solicitorswho made emergency applications for contact andresidence^

^We conclude that ensuringthe safety of both children and adultsreceives insufficient consideration this was a strong and consistentmessage from the women survivors ofdomestic violence who we consulted.We consider that arrangements forassessing the risks associated withallegations of domestic violence needmarkedly strengthening (HMICA, 2005: iv)^

^The supply of properlyqualified family lawyers is vitalto the protection of children (MoJ, DfE & WAG, 2011: 36)^ How is the withdrawal of legal aid going to help protect children?

^Solicitors and barristers shared womens concernsabout self-representation, with most identifying twodimensions of potential abuse and intimidation. Firstly,perpetrators representing themselves used crossexamination as another route to harass and underminetheir ex-partners. ^

^[It is] difficult to have theconfidence to expressallegations of violence, let alone crossexamine a perpetrator. Also schedulesof allegations are  if they are good carefully drafted legal documents.[This] cannot be done properly bylitigants in persons (R63, barrister)^ Things are going to get even worse for RPs and children when the changes come in, if the system isn't failing now, it almost certainly will be in a few weeks time IMHO

It's full of worrying things that will effect RPs when the changes come in

such as

*As well as the obvious risks to womens welfare, thereare multiple ways in which outcomes of cases can thusbe influenced where they and/or their abusive expartners represent themselves.  Victim-survivors are not enabled to give their bestevidence about histories of abuse, which may becrucial to determining whether contact, and in whatform, is deemed appropriate.  The difficulties of cross-examining their perpetratorsmay mean they do not ask sufficiently probingquestions or challenge responses, which againinforms what evidence is available to the court.  They are rarely equipped with the legal knowledgeand experience to prepare documentation andnegotiate family law processes e.g. requestingfinding of fact hearings.  Pressure to reach speedy resolution may mean thatwomen accede to arrangements which are notnecessarily in their own or their childrens bestinterests. Unsurprisingly, and echoing recent research (Rights ofWomen, 2010, 2011; NFWI, 2011), women describedthe ability to access free or low-cost legal advice andrepresentation through the legal aid scheme as a lifeline. *

If women were listened to, if it was worth standing up and saying anything this report and the effects of emotional abuse would have been taken seriously and the legal aid changes would not be as strict

The courts rely upon the evidence of very many psychologists and psychiatrists who point to their research findings about the importance of identity and the child's need to understand his/her heritage.

This research has then been given legal force both domestically and internationally by the European Convention of Human Rights. Judges are not just operating on a whim.

I am sorry if some people find judges more interested in their lunch. I don't think this is universal. Last week I was before a district judge who had five cases in her list at 10am, three at 11am and agreed to hear us at 1.30, having worked solidly from about 8am.

So maybe more judges might help. I will bet she wasn't in a great mood for her 2pm list.

The courts and sw postion is to allow contact and it your joh to prove it shouldnt happen to they go in with the mind set contact will happen

This happens with children in care also i worked with children who have been sexually abused removed because of this but bevause its not yet been proved in a court of law contact must contiune

Also adoptive parents are pressured into keeping contact with birth parents whom in many cases have neglected there birth chikdren so badly the descision has been made to place the children for adoption in fact they wont let you even apply to becaome an adoptive parent unless you agree to contact

They system is very bias i myself will be attending mediation next week the first thing the medatior said was he was nutral but at the same time making it clear the end result would be some type of contact netural my arse

So forcing a child to have contact with a parent with psychological issues is in their best interest?

Women can be just as damaging as men, and they are not always the better parent. My issue is with courts listening and taking claims and evidence seriously. Of course two involved parents are what's best for a child but not at all costs and it's a sign of how emotional abuse isn't taken seriously enough by the fact that it won't be covered for legal aid under the new reforms and children are going to be put at risk and people are going to be forced to self represent making it even easier for abusers to use the court system to further their abuse of the victim, and children are going to be failed because they will not be adequately protected without their RP having legal representation

I actually now qualify for legal aid with regards child contact whereas I didn't before the new rules.

My solicitor, and the judge who has presided over the large majority of my hearings, have been MY voice and that of my children.

The difficulties I have experienced have lain with social services. They have made recommendations after being hoodwinked by an extremely manipulative and abusive man. The judge has gone against these recommendations. 2 years after abusing my child, my Ex is relentless in his campaign to paint me as a vindictive woman who is stopping him from seeing his children on a whim.

My solicitor and the judge are the only people who face him and tell him (again and again) that his abuse is the reason why he has limited contact. And I will be eternally grateful to them both for that.

Spero. i dont mean to sound smug bit for me these legal aid changes will save our family form going bankrupt me and my oh work my ex has crawled out of the wood work after 10 years demanding contact with my ds now(13) of course ex dosent work and would get full funding while we would have to find 5-10k so for us the fact he wont be able to take this Any futher than the medation which we had to agree as to stall him to april the 1st has been a god send

It is not about 'forcing' it is about 'balancing harm'. A parent could be so abusive that he or she should never be allowed even indirect contact. Or a parent could be abusive but loved by a child and the consequences of no contact could be harmful.

It's not as black and white as you want to believe.

What would really help is many many more decent contact centres where contact could be supervised without putting parents on the front line.

Spero my sister had her eyey socket damaged by her ex he is also currently living with his parents and his brother(whom was convicted in 2009 of haveing sex with a 14 year old girl)

In addition to almost blinding my sister he picked up her son from school with out her permission(not his son) when challanged by after school staff he spat in the managers face called her a monkey (she is black) and the police was called he was caught 3 miles down the road with her son drinking a super T

He spent a year in jail for this it was uncloverd during the. Trial he had already been in jail for kicked his ex gf in the tummy whilest pregant

He was awared 2 day of unsupervised contact a fortnight sorry but balancing harm my butt